Laserfiche WebLink
Draft <br /> • Every 2 minutes thereafter <br /> Once the water level had stabilized in the wellthe rising head test was <br /> performed by restarting the data logger and rapidly removing the slug <br /> from the well Water levels were then recorded to the same frequency <br /> listed above <br /> This procedure was repeated for each of the wells that slug testing was <br /> performed in at the site The water levels recorded during each test are <br /> included in this appendix A plot of the water level versus time for each <br /> test is also included <br /> SLUG TEST RESULTS <br /> The data collected during the slug test was analyzed using the Hvorslev <br /> method (Hvorslev 1951)] The computer program AquiferTest for <br /> Windows, Version 2 5 (Waterloo Hydrogeologic, 1997) was used to <br /> analyze the test data The maximum height of water rise (or fall) was <br /> recorded for each head test The height of water rise at each time interval <br /> following the maximum rise is then divided by the maximum rise These <br /> data are then plotted versus time on semilogarithmic scale The best fit <br /> line of this data is then determined The following formula is then used to <br /> compute the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer from the data <br /> K = rz 1n L, R <br /> 2L�To <br /> where, <br />' • K is hydraulic conductivity, <br /> • r is the radius of the well casing (2 inches), <br />' • R is the radius of the well screen (2 inches), <br /> • Le is the saturated length of the well screen (4 5 feet for MW-4 and <br />' MW-6, 10 feet for MW-1 and MW-2), and <br /> • T, is the time it takes the water level rise to fall to 37 percent of the <br /> initial change <br /> ' Hvorslev, M J 1951 Time lag and soil permeability in ground water <br /> observations U S Army Corps of Engineers Waterway <br /> Experimentation Station, Bulletin 36 <br />' ERM 2 CLIENT NAME/WO NUMBER-3/8/99 <br />